Re: low priority soft RT?

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:35:08 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Ralf Baechle: "Re: endiannes of the kernel"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: clone, mm->count, and coredumps"

On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 09:07:52PM +0200, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Yes, but if you extended your range, you would have "deadlock with
> > upperbound of minute" situation, which is very bad, also.
>
> What's wrong with simply promoting the SCHED_IDLE task to normal
> priority while it's in the kernel?

You could just fix "goodness" to do a different calculation depending
on the process state.

> That leaves only user-space deadlocks, e.g. a locked file, which I don't
> think we should be worring about here.

>
> -- Jamie
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Ralf Baechle: "Re: endiannes of the kernel"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: clone, mm->count, and coredumps"